guidelines for selecting pellet plant technology - iron ... · pdf fileguidelines for...
TRANSCRIPT
00/2014
Guidelines for Selecting Pellet Plant TechnologyI. Cameron, M. Huerta, J. BolenM. Okrutny, K. O’Leary
AusIMM, Iron Ore Conference , Perth WA | 13‐15 July 2015
2
00/2014
Introduction• The availability of lump ore and sinter fines is declining; lower grade
iron ore resources must be finely ground to upgrade Fe content to acceptable levels.
• Eventually, new investments in pelletizing capacity are required to bring Fe concentrates into the steelmaking value chain.
• The straight grate (SG) and grate kiln (GK) are the only two commercially proven processes.
• Hatch compared both technologies to help investors better understand how best to pelletize concentrates.
3
00/2014
Contents• Iron Ore Pelletizing Technologies
• Plant Capacity
• Fuel Options and Energy Consumption
• Pellet Product Quality
• Capex and Opex
• Environmental Performance
• Summary
4
00/2014
The Growth of Iron Ore Pelletizing
• Iron ore pelletizing has grown since its origins in 1950’s and accelerated in recent times.
• With depletion of high quality DSOs and sinter fines, global pellet feed production will substantially increase.
• Pelletizing capacity will continue to grow to supply direct reduced iron plants and blast furnaces.
• Usage of pellet feed at sinter plants will increase.
Regional growth since 1950
0
100
200
300
400
500
1949 1968 1975 1982 1990 1998 2004 2010
World Pelletizing Ca
pacity (M
tpa)
Year
ChinaMiddle EastRest of Asia / AustraliaEuropeCISSouth AmericaNorth America
5
00/2014
Straight Grate (SG) and Grate Kiln (GK)
The Straight Grate (SG) pelletizing process
The Grate Kiln (GK) pelletizing process
6
00/2014
New Emerging Technology: Circular Pelletizing Technology (CPT)
Primetals Technologies’ Circular Pelletizing Technology (CPT)
• Alternative to SG and GK.
• Essentially a SG indurationfurnace arranged in a circle to reduce the plant footprint.
• Current plant sizes on offer -0.6 to 3.0 Mtpa.
• First plant under construction in India.
7
00/2014
Iron Ore Mineral Pelletized
• The SG technology is proven for magnetite, hematite and mixed ores.
• The GK is proven for magnetite ores and mixtures of magnetite and hematite; less experience with hematite ores than the SG.
Pelletizing capacity by iron ore mineral
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
SG GK
World Pelletizing Ca
pacity
(Mtpa)
Other OresHematiteMagnetite + HematiteMagnetite
8
00/2014
Pellet Plant Capacity Increase Since 1960
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Annu
al Cap
acity
of Ind
ividua
lPe
llet Lines (M
tpa)
Year
CarbonAddition
AutomationSystems
DeepBed
Double Deck Roller Screen
Hyper‐Activation
High Pressure Grinding Rolls
Mathematical Models
AdvancedProcessControl
ExpertSystems
CoolerRecoup
ReducedAir
Leakage
Fans withVariable Frequency Drives
Hearth Layer Bin Separation
SG ImprovementsGK ImprovementsSG/GK Improvements
Coal Fired Kiln
RollerScreen
9
00/2014
Fuel OptionsAbility of SG and GK to use various fuels
Fuel SG GK
Gaseous Fuels
Liquid Fuels
Solid Fuels, such as coal
Solid Carbon Addition to HematiteConcentrate Limited
10
00/2014
Energy ConsumptionThermal energy consumption for selected pellet plants
Electricity consumption for process fans
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Magnetite
Mag ‐ Hem
Magnetite
Mag ‐ Hem
Mag ‐ Hem
Magnetite
Magnetite
Thermal Energy Consumption (MJ/t pellet)
GKSG Technology Typical
(kWh/t)
Lowest Reported(kWh/t)
SG 20 - 25 13
GK 15 - 20 12
11
00/2014
Pellet Product Quality• Both SG and GK produce quality fired pellets for BF and DR applications.
• Fired pellet quality depends on ore type, end user demands, type and quality of fluxes and binders, balling technology, screening equipment, etc.
• The GK produces fired pellets with more uniform physical strength due to the nature of material flow in the rotary kiln that exposes all green pellets to the peak firing temperature.
• The SG generates less fines due to the absence of transfer points and little relative movement/abrasion between pellets and furnace parts.
• Both SG and GK report experience with organic binders; more data is needed to fully understand how best to use organic binder and produce top quality pellets.
12
00/2014
Capex and Opex Comparison
Capex Comparison – SG and GK Opex Comparison – SG and GK
0
20
40
60
80
100
Straight Grate Grate Kiln
Relativ
e Ca
pital Cost
Cost Items SG GK
Iron Ore Concentrate similar similar
Additives/Binder similar similar
Fuel ▼ ▲
Electricity ▲ ▼
Water similar similar
Refractory ▼ ▲
Other Consumables similar similar
Labour similar similar
Maintenance ▼ ▲
Overall similar similar
13
00/2014
Environmental Performance• Air pollutants of concern are dust, SOx, NOx and greenhouse gases (GHG).
• Both technologies use ESPs or bag houses for dust control.
• Newer plants are considering de-S equipment to reduce emissions.
• The SG can utilize ultra low NOx burners in a separate combustion chamber with controlled atmosphere; this approach is not possible in the GK.
• Low NOx burners can be used in the GK, but the ultra low levels projected for the SG are probably not possible for the GK.
• GHG production, particularly CO2 is directly related to the type and amount of fossil fuel combusted and the calcination of fluxes.
14
00/2014
Overall Comparison – SG and GKSG GK Remarks
1) Iron Ore Minerala) Hematite
yeslimited
useb) Magnetite yes yesc) Hematite/Magnetite Mixture yes yes
2) Unit Capacitya) 3-7 Mtpa yes yesb) 7-9 Mtpa yes no
3) Fuel Typea) Natural Gas yes yesb) Fuel Oil yes yesc) Pulverized Coal no yesd) Carbon Addition to Hematite Ore Mix
highamount
limiteduse
Legend: Competitive advantageNo advantage/disadvantageDisadvantageTechnical constraint
Variable
GK is best suited for magnetite and magnetite/hematite mixtures while SG is suitable for all minerals.
GK has not demonstrated unit capacities beyond 7.0 Mtpy.
SG has not demonstrated operation with pulverized coal while GK can operate will all fuels.SG can operate with high amounts of carbon additions to hematite ore mixes whereas the use of GK for this application is limited.
15
00/2014
Overall Comparison – SG and GKSG GK Remarks
4) Thermal Energy Consumption slightly lower
slightly higher
Slight advantage for SG.
5) Electrical Energy Consumption higher lower Advantage for GK due to smaller process fans.6) Product Quality slightly
lowerslightly higher
GK provides better fired pellet temperature uniformity.
7) Fines Generationless fines
more fines
Advantage to SG due to lack of transfer points.
8) Organic Binder Use yes limiteduse
In general, advantage to SG, although some have reported advantage to GK.
9) Capex slightly higher
slightly lower
Slight advantage for GK in process fan cost, no hearth layer return system and less building costs.
10) Opex similar similar Site specific.11) Environmental Performance slightly
higherslightly lower
More potential to reduce NOx for the SG in a separate combustion chamber, otherwise no obvious advantage.
Legend: Competitive advantageNo advantage/disadvantageDisadvantageTechnical constraint
Variable
16
00/2014
Acknowledgements• The authors are pleased to acknowledge the following contributors
for their valuable input:– David Tucker
– Jose Murilo Mourão
– Miguel Sabanero
– Urano Medeiros
– Kelly Scott
– Mike Walsh
17
00/2014
For more information, please visit www.hatch.ca
Thank You
Ian CameronSenior Director – Iron & SteelPhone [email protected]